Who Does Sri Guru Granth Sahib Address Most?

[prakash.s.bagga]

VIPKOLON Ji,
If you feel that the real Gurmati view is tha same as spritual truth taught by saints from other religions then you are grossly mistaken .It would nice of you to give an y example of spritual message being the same that is the same as Gurmati view.
There may be some similarities in views but the fundamentals of Gurbanee are unique and entirely different from all other views of the time till date..
But I do admit that messages of Gurbanee have not reached the masses the way it should have been .Gurbanee understanding is still in its infancy stage.Even the Sikhs are yet trying to comprehend the true essence of Gurbanee.Till date what ever interpretations are availabe still require some refinement (This i Personally think so) and I am sure some better understanding would deinitely emerge from this excercise.
This is important to realise .
Prakash.S.Bagga

 

[Parma]

So then the interpretation from a source was correct that I posted! That's ok then. Maybe the word is not Parmatma and instead Parmatam but I guess the meaning is the same of the words. From reading some of the posts above to make a clarification there are saints in sikhism, Bhagat means Saint, we have Bhagat Kabir, Bhagat Fareed may have spelt is wrong, and there are others! Just my add to the debate thank you all very much I am thankfull for your all your help on my journey, and may waheguru bless you allpeacesign

 

[Ambarsaria]

Parma ji if it helps some thoughts,

So then the interpretation from a source was correct that I posted! That's ok then. Maybe the word is not Parmatma and instead Parmatam but I guess the meaning is the same of the words.

ATAMu__ਆਤਮੁ = ਆਪਣਾ ਆਪ, ਆਪਣਾ ਆਤਮਕ ਜੀਵਨ। ==> Spiritual Living versus "Soul" (Atma)

PARMATAMu would be the ==> Spiritual ways of the creator or "Supreme Soul" (Parmatma)

• Parm ---> premier, supreme
  • Parma ---> Supreme one
    

From reading some of the posts above to make a clarification there are saints in sikhism, Bhagat means Saint, we have Bhagat Kabir, Bhagat Fareed may have spelt is wrong, and there are others! Just my add to the debate thank you all very much I am thankfull for your all your help on my journey, and may waheguru bless you allpeacesign

Saint (Sant being more common word in Punjabi) in traditional western vernacular can have significant different connotations (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/saint). For us as long as we keep note of that all is good.

Sat Sri Akal.

 

[BhagatSingh]

Bhagats have made clear distinction betweem RAM as Joti and RAM(U) as
Son of Dashrath.All bhagats are giving the message of worship for RAM as NAAM(u) only.
Prakash.S.Bagga

What I am trying to say is that Ram, Krishna, Hari have been worshipped by Bhagats and Gurus from all periods of time from 1200s-1600s and these are referring to their Jyot and their form, simultaneously. This is key. They are referring to e.g. the Son of Dasrath and God in the same breath. Their belief is that Ram Chandra is God. That Krishna is God.

The authors of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji worship: Baikunth ke Vasi (Dweller of Vaikunth - Vishnu), Kamlapati (Husband of Kamla/Lakshmi - Vishnu), Chaturbhuj (Four-armed - Vishnu is always depicted with four arms, even though he is said to have thousands), Murli Manohar (Flute player - Krishna), Raja Ram (King Ram), Raghuvansh (Descendent of Raghu - King Ram), Raghunath (Leader of Raghus' descendents - King Ram), NarSingh/Narhar (Vishnu's Man-lion incarnation), Krishna Murare (Krishna the Slayer of demon Mura), Gopi Nath (Master of the Gopis, village girls - Krishna) ... I could go on... these are referring to Vishnu and his incarnations, God and his incarnations, specifically. These names cannot be referring to anything else. The authors of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji worship the One as these incarnations, ie, through their Naam.

You'll notice Brahma and Shiva are never mentioned at the same level. According to Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, they are not the all-pervading, supreme Lord; that is Vishnu. They don't understand the Lord, nor comprehend His limits.

What we try and do now is divorce the name from the mythology. That is fine because the message is not limited to the mythology and those who know it. But the authors of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji are saying things that only make sense in light of the mythology. Practicing their message requires little understanding of the mythology but I think now that I started studying the mythology, my reading of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji is much richer and makes heck of a lot more sense than it used to. It is also consistent with the history of northern India, the prevalent views, philosophies and spiritual practices... you know that moment when you put in the one missing piece of the puzzle and everything else makes sense.

Anyways, now that I understand this, I understand that this is only the tip of the iceberg. Things go much deeper than this. The bani of the Gurus and Bhagats is a window to the past!!

 

[prakash.s.bagga]

BHAGAT SINGH Ji,
I am certainly getting to your points but the basic point is that Gurbanee is all about NAAMu.
We generally understand the meaning of the word NAAMu as NAME whereas this is not so.
The meaning of the word NAAMu is not NAME this is required to be understood.In Gurbanee the proper word for NAME is NAA-U.

Further the whole Gurbannee is based on the word GuRoo(The word GuR with Two underlines under its last letter R).Unless this word GuRoo is properly understood it would be rather difficult to understand the real essence of Gurbanee.

The most important point of understanding Gurbanee is that knowing the proper reference for understanding of Gurbanee.You will notice that this reference is the word PRABHu and the end reference of Gurbanee is HARi NAAMu or RAM NAAMu of this PRABHu only. These two references for Gurbanee understanding are well and vividly set by Guru Nanak ji thru out .

Now you can see if anywhere the One VISHANu (You refer in your message) is being refered as PRABHu .If you find so then your point of view should be fully acceptable.But actually it is not so.You should verify this .
Having known this we should develop true understanding of Gurbanee.

Prakash.S.Bagga

 

[BhagatSingh]

Prakash Singh ji
Well that is getting to other topics of Naam and Guru. My concern here is only with what the Guru is asking us to worship and that is Vishnu as the supreme Lord, Prabhu as you say, and his incarnations. Who we call Waheguru is referred to as Vishnu in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji. Bhai Gurdas ji clarifies this in his vaars: Waheguru is the Gurmantar that is composed of Wasudev, Hari, Gobind and Ram.

The understanding of Vishnu (Naam) is not any different in the time of Gurus than in the past say 1200s. Their was a belief that Naam could only be obtained from a Guru. Gurmat is the way to liberation.

If you feel that the real Gurmati view is tha same as spritual truth taught by saints from other religions then you are grossly mistaken .It would nice of you to give an y example of spritual message being the same that is the same as Gurmati view.

Now the Gurmat form of the universal spiritual teaching is definitely unique. They are all unique. Some closer to others in language, others not so much. But in essence it is the same. E.g St John of the Cross isn't saying get "Naam from the Guru and attain Nirvana". He simply composes poems which speaks of that which the Guru calls Niravana.

He says

I was left there so absorbed,
so entranced, and so removed,
that my senses were abroad,
robbed of all sensation proved,
and my spirit then was moved
with an unknown knowing,
all knowledge there transcending.

If you know Nirvana then you know exactly what he is talking about. But he doesn't call it that.

 

[prakash.s.bagga]

BHAGAT SINGH Ji,
I would like to see any such quote from SGGS where VISHNU is stated to be PRABHu or WAHi GuRoo as VISHNu.This should make the point more clear.And the message from SGGS is more authentic rather than what is written in other sources.Our final authority is SGGS.
Prakash.S.Bagga

 

[Luckysingh]

bagga[/SIZE];163253]BHAGAT SINGH Ji,
I would like to see any such quote from Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji where VISHNU is stated to be PRABHu or WAHi GuRoo as VISHNu.This should make the point more clear.And the message from Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji is more authentic rather than what is written in other sources.Our final authority is Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji.
Prakash.S.Bagga

I maybe intruding here, but reading the above -one verse came to mind from tha japji sahib that we have all heard many times
' Gur isar, gur gorkh bharma, gur parbati maaieh'
The guru is Shiva, guru is Vishnu and Brahma, guru is Parvati and Lakhshmi.

 

[prakash.s.bagga]

I maybe intruding here, but reading the above -one verse came to mind from tha japji sahib that we have all heard many times
' Gur isar, gur gorkh bharma, gur parbati maaieh'
The guru is Shiva, guru is Vishnu and Brahma, guru is Parvati and Lakhshmi.

You are right.Here it is very clear that for a Sikh only GuRu is everything.
So try to understand what is this GuRu in Gurbanee?

You can look at this quote too from Japu Banee as

Eka Maee Jugati Wihaee Tin Chele Parvan,
Ik Sansaari ,Ik bhandari,Ik laae Diban
Jiw Tisu Bhawae Tiwae chalawae,
Jiw howae furmaan
Ohu Vaekhe Onaa Nadari Naa aawae
Bahutaa Ehu Vidaan
Ades Tisae Ades
Adi Aneel Anadi Anahati
Jug Jug EKo Waes

Prakash.S.Bagga

 

[prakash.s.bagga]

Bhagat Singh ji,
Pl look at the following Quote from SGGs as pp 909 Raagu Ramkali M 3

<TABLE cellSpacing=5><TBODY><TR><TD>ਤ੍ਰੈ ਗੁਣ ਅਚੇਤ ਨਾਮੁ ਚੇਤਹਿ ਨਾਹੀ ਬਿਨੁ ਨਾਵੈ ਬਿਨਸਿ ਜਾਈ ॥੧੫॥

त्रै गुण अचेत नामु चेतहि नाही बिनु नावै बिनसि जाई ॥१५॥

Ŧarai guṇ acẖeṯ nām cẖīṯėh nāhī bin nāvai binas jā▫ī. ||15||

Trapped by the three qualities, the unconscious person does not think of the Naam; without the Name, he wastes away. ||15||


</TD></TR><TR><TD>ਬ੍ਰਹਮਾ ਬਿਸਨੁ ਮਹੇਸੁ ਤ੍ਰੈ ਮੂਰਤਿ ਤ੍ਰਿਗੁਣਿ ਭਰਮਿ ਭੁਲਾਈ ॥੧੬॥

ब्रहमा बिसनु महेसु त्रै मूरति त्रिगुणि भरमि भुलाई ॥१६॥

Barahmā bisan mahes ṯarai mūraṯ ṯariguṇ bẖaram bẖulā▫ī. ||16||

The three forms of Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva are trapped in the three qualities, lost in confusion. ||16||
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Prakash.s.Bagga

 

[Harry Haller]

I maybe intruding here, but reading the above -one verse came to mind from tha japji sahib that we have all heard many times
' Gur isar, gur gorkh bharma, gur parbati maaieh'
The guru is Shiva, guru is Vishnu and Brahma, guru is Parvati and Lakhshmi.

Luckyji

There is an absolute difference between WaheGuru/Prabh, ie Creator, and Guru, ie Teacher.

I have no problem accepting Vishnu/Brahma/Ram as Teachers, spiritual Gurus, but they are not Creator, they are not the ultimate truth, without form, without birth, without death, they do not tick the boxes that fit in with how Creator is described.

The line itself is

The guru is Shiva, guru is Vishnu and Brahma, guru is Parvati and Lakhshmi.

This confirms that the SGGS is interested only in Creator, not in having a monopoly on the path to enlightenment.

The constant reference to this line, in my view, in the wrong context, only furthers the confusion and strengthens the Vedic interference in Sikhism

Regards

 

[prakash.s.bagga]

HARRY HALLAR Ji,
I fully endorse your views but with some reservations to the word GuRu.
Pl look at the Quote as
ਗੁਰੁ ਈਸਰੁ ਗੁਰੁ ਗੋਰਖੁ ਬਰਮਾ ਗੁਰੁ ਪਾਰਬਤੀ ਮਾਈ ॥

गुरु ईसरु गुरु गोरखु बरमा गुरु पारबती माई ॥

Gur īsar gur gorakẖ barmā gur pārbaṯī mā▫ī.



You will notice that in Gurmukhi script the word GuR is with a single line under its letter R which is not depicted in translitration to Roman .This needs to be understood very well.
I think when you write the word GuRu you refer to the word GuR with two lines under its last letter R.(Which I prefer to write as GuRoo)

This distiction makes a great difference in the overall understanding of Gurbanee messages.

Prakash.s.Bagga

 

[prakash.s.bagga]

HARRY HALLAR Ji,
I would like to share some views in respect of Brahma,Vishanu and Mahesh.
In Hindu Philosophy these three together are represtation of POWER for creation of physical forms of the universe.In this context only we learn from Gurbanee that there are several Brahmas,Several Vishanus and Several Maheshas.
These three together as TRINITY in Hindu philosophy are denoted by Single word as ONKAAR.Brahma ,Vishanu and Mahesh by themselves have no physical form.Since they are considered as GOD so they have their respective GODDESS too.

When we think of form this is concerned some sort of Physical Form.
When we say CREATOR is FORMLESS it relates to Physical Form whereas CREATOR may have its own FORM so in this sense CREATOR is not FORMLESS as we think.
So try to understand this FORM of CREATOR then you will have still better understanding of CREATOR and its expansion as being envisaged in Gurbanee.
Prakash.S.Bagga

 

[Harry Haller]

Prakashji,

If I were a baddie in a bond movie, I would be saying about now, 'ah Mr Bond, I have been expecting you' lol

Could you explain, in a clear a fashion as possible, what Gur and GuRoo, means, as although we have discussed this many, many times, I do not believe we ever got to a conclusion, which is a shame, because I am genuinely interested in the differences

regards

 

[Harry Haller]

Prakashji

What you are saying is that the trinity that exists in the Christianity through the father, son and holy ghost, the trinity that exists in Hinduism, Brahma, Vishnu, Mahesh, also exists in Sikhism?

This to me seems to go against the very simple concept of Ek Onkar, although if one were to embrace this concept, is this where the Eukamkwar concept marries in?

I find it hard to believe that something so simple as one Creator, no form, could in fact be a trinity with form, but I am always interested to see how different interpretations have been arrived at, so if you could explain the trinity in a bit more detail, without the need for quotations, just a general overview, I would be in your debt

kind regards

 

[prakash.s.bagga]

Prakashji

What you are saying is that the trinity that exists in the Christianity through the father, son and holy ghost, the trinity that exists in Hinduism, Brahma, Vishnu, Mahesh, also exists in Sikhism?

This to me seems to go against the very simple concept of Ek Onkar, although if one were to embrace this concept, is this where the Eukamkwar concept marries in?

I find it hard to believe that something so simple as one Creator, no form, could in fact be a trinity with form, but I am always interested to see how different interpretations have been arrived at, so if you could explain the trinity in a bit more detail, without the need for quotations, just a general overview, I would be in your debt

kind regards

I did not say that trinity existed in Sikhisim.You have probably miscostrued what I have written.If you tell me how you understood so from what I have written I may clarify you accordingly.
Prakash.s.Bagga

 

[prakash.s.bagga]

Prakashji,

If I were a baddie in a bond movie, I would be saying about now, 'ah Mr Bond, I have been expecting you' lol

Could you explain, in a clear a fashion as possible, what Gur and GuRoo, means, as although we have discussed this many, many times, I do not believe we ever got to a conclusion, which is a shame, because I am genuinely interested in the differences

regards

If you can understand the difference between a PAIR OF PENCIL and a PENCIL I think you can get to the meaning of the words GuRoo and GuRu.
Prakash.s.Bagga

 

[Harry Haller]

If you can understand the difference between a PAIR OF PENCIL and a PENCIL I think you can get to the meaning of the words GuRoo and GuRu.
Prakash.s.Bagga

Prakashji,

So I may understand fully, do you mean a pair of pencils or a pair of pencil

thank you

 

[prakash.s.bagga]

Prakashji,

So I may understand fully, do you mean a pair of pencils or a pair of pencil

thank you

Now you can understand GuRoo as <GuRu.GuRu><GURU.GURU><GURU.GURU>

Prakash.s.Bagga

 

[prakash.s.bagga]

HARRY HALLAR Ji,

So you can understand the word GuRoo as <GuRu.GuRu> or <GuRoo.GuRoo>

Prakash.s.Bagga